Re: [asa] God, Chance and Purpose

> He takes issue with the approach by Russell, Murphy and others who find room
> for God's providence in the cloak of quantum uncertainty. He quotes Stephen
> Hawking as writing "If one likes one could ascribe this randomness to God,
> but it would be a very strange kind of intervention: there is no evidence
> that it was directed towards any purpose. Indeed if it were, it would, by
> definition not be random." Bartholomew continues "It is part of the last
> sentence of the quotation that touches the nub of the matter. Randomness is
> what we have when all purpose and direction is excluded. We cannot,
> therefore, smuggle purpose in by the back door under cover of randomness.
> "If, on the other hand, the equations of quantum theory do describe genuine
> randomness, there is no room for action by God mediated through individual
> events at the quantum level."

This seems to confound different types of "randomness". There is the
fact that quantum events are, as far as we can tell, mathematically
best described by a probabilistic model. This is mathematically
random. But the type of mathematical model does not tell us whether
there is purpose or direction. Likewise, "there is no evidence that
it was directed towards any purpose"-there is no mathematical
evidence, but then again there is nothing in a mathematical or physics
study of the behavior of the electrons in this computer that helps
understand my purpose in sending the email. To find evidence of
purpose, don't look at quantum physics (although ID would tell you
to). Rather, look and see whether the outcome of the quantum events
achieves a particular result that seems to reflect a particular
purpose. Also entagled here is the question of how much difference
quantum events make on the macroscopic world. Of course, they are
interrelated, but the number of cases in which it makes any
significant difference to history whether atom X does this versus that
is probably a very small fraction of the total number of quantum
events. E.g., if some sort of intervention-style action is involved
in making a certain group of atoms long ago, in a supernova far away,
generate a cosmic ray that produces a key mutation leading towards
humans, no amount of monitoring the decay of a radioactive sample in a
lab will detect that. Cf. a LeFanu story in which a fortune-telling
stunt was part of an elaborate trap. Other people got rather random
and meaningless messages, but the victim got a personalized fortune to
lure him on.

There's also a problem of intervention versus continual guidance,
sustenance, etc.

Yet another complication is the unsolved question of whether "can God
resolve quantum uncertainty" is really a variant on "can God make a
four-sided triangle". Just as the Trinity manages to be three and
one, atomic-scale particles manage to have features that seem strange
to us but which may not be precisely resolvable.

> Bartholomew also calls attention on p. 183 to Miller's "Perspectives on an
> Evolving Creation" and specifically names both Keith Miller and Terry Gray,
> citing their discussion of randomness.

There is a discussion in that book on different levels of randomness
(mathematical versus metaphysical).

> What is his suggestion? On p. 192 he says "There is no physical
> mechanism--there does not need to be--but chance and necessity alone are
> sufficient to do the job in exactly the way God intended." In other words,
> the randomness we see is real and the individual "random" events are not
> individually determined by God but the macroscopic purpose and direction is
> accomplished through the randomness of the micro level. He goes on to
> discuss human freedom in the same terms.

Another way of describing the issue is asking whether God's will is a
point or a region.

It's somewhat moot as to whether a set of random events that
inevitably bring about a particular result should really be called
random. Molecules jiggle erratically in all directions, but
increasing this random activity is increasing the temperature. One
aspect is random, but another isn't. Similarly, just because someone
doesn't know what atom will split and start a chain reaction doesn't
absolve him of responsibility for setting off a nuclear weapon.

-- 
Dr. David Campbell
425 Scientific Collections
University of Alabama
"I think of my happy condition, surrounded by acres of clams"
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.